Revista Ética e Filosofia Política – Nº 13 – Volume 1 – Janeiro de 2011 Democratic Liberal Peace: from peace to war Henrique Weil Afonso* Summary: 1. Introduction; 2. The Liberal underpinnings of Democratic Peace Theory; 3. Differing aspects of Democratic Peace Theory; 4. From Democratic Peace Theory to Democratic War Theory?; 5. Conclusion; 6. References Abstract Democratic Peace Theory acknowledges the spread of democratic values as a means to achieve international peace. By drawing on a comprehensive Kantian background, the theory has served as justification for the imposition of western liberal values around the globe. This article exams the theory’s basic tenets and facets in order to investigate its ideological claims. It is suggested that the spread of democratic values alone cannot be granted complete success in the task of bringing about world peace and stability. Despite its supposedly peaceful ultimate intentions, the theory may also work as a domination discourse that foments war and conflict. Keywords: Democratic Peace Theory; Perpetual Peace; Liberalism; War * Graduado em Direito pela Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora. Estudante visitante do Colorado College (EUA, 2005) e da University of Westminster (Inglaterra, 2007). Mestrando em Direito Internacional pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais. 122 1 Revista Ética e Filosofia Política – Nº 13 – Volume 1 – Janeiro de 2011 1. Introduction How do different cultures interact in the promotion of peace? What role do rich states play in this very process? Is there a single model capable of achieving world peace? The complex security challenges faced by contemporary international society, it is often argued, cannot be comprehensively dealt with by traditional crisis management strategies such as exclusively military campaigns. Democratic Peace Theory reckons the spread of liberal democracy as a means to attain peace. However, according to our argument, there is evidence that the theory fails to highlight the role played by international institutions and economic interdependence as key factors in the peacemaking proposal. Interestingly, just as liberal democratic institutions operate favorably to the peace cause, by the very same institutions and ideology wars are often justified and fought. Lastly, we will argue that the theory is deeply set in western universalist claims that work both as an incentive to intervene and as a justification for selectively fight in a given war rather than another. In a first moment we will give a brief account of the Liberal roots of Democratic Peace Theory. Its main features will be explored, as well as different approaches within the theory, such as the concepts of dyadic and monadic peace. A latter section will explore the limitations of Democratic Theory, more importantly the importance of international institutions and free trade, cultural relativism as opposed to universalism and then, in a final section, we will explore the existence of an indispensable normative element to the 123 2 Revista Ética e Filosofia Política – Nº 13 – Volume 1 – Janeiro de 2011 Democratic Peace proposal. Under such a liberal democratic framework lies an often overlooked side effect of Democratic Peace Theory: the Democratic War Theory legitimizing liberal democratic belligerent states’ interventionism and ideological expansionist campaigns. 2. The Liberal underpinnings of Democratic Peace Theory Jackson & SØrensen (2007) identify the concepts of human progress, human reason and cooperation as central to Liberalism conceived as a Theory of International Relations. According to Liberals, faith in human relations, development and underpinning values such as justice and progress constitute the framework for international understanding and peace. The Realist claim that war and conflict is inherently present in human nature is vehemently contested by Liberals, for there it is possible to fetch peaceful ways to settle disputes. Similarly, international institutions play a significant role in keeping world order and peace. Equality promoted by basic rights for all citizens, democratic political processes, effective law enforcement mechanisms and a market driven economy should also be highlighted as constituting the skeleton of Liberal thought (Dunne, 2005). Once the basic tenets of Liberal thought have been outlined, one can engage in a more comprehensive analysis of Immanuel Kant’s ‘Perpetual Peace’. There are three essential elements in Kant’s Peace Theory, and the way such elements interact renders Liberal Democracy the status of the ideal 124 3 Revista Ética e Filosofia Política – Nº 13 – Volume 1 – Janeiro de 2011 western form of government. The first of these elements is civil liberties and legal equality of individuals, for ‘[…] individuals are morally autonomous in that they are free to set moral standards for their own actions’ (Danilovic & Clare, 2007: 400). The second key element is the representative rule, with democracy consisting of an ideal to be pursued, even though emphasis ought to be given to the ‘[…] representative “spirit” of public choices, regardless of the type of the government body producing them’ (Danilovic & Clare, 2007: 400). Finally, there is the separation of powers, which is combined with an efficient system of checks and balances aiming to assure a balance between the powers inside states, in the sense that no power will supercede any of the other two. Kant believed that the republican form of government is the only one that respects citizens’ individual rights, thereby recognizing the moral status of the individual. States that share the same liberal values are expected to maintain friendly affairs, systematically reducing the chances of wars between them. On the other hand, liberal states are more prone to engage in conflict with illiberal ones. Such a differentiation in the war pattern, that is, liberal states’ proneness to fight illiberal states as well as the unlikelihood of wars between liberal states is called the ‘dyadic peace’ (Geis et al, 2007: 158). In this sense, ‘Through their faith in the power of human reason and the capacity of human beings to realize their inner potential, [liberals] remain confident that the stain of war can be removed from human experience’. (Burchill, 2005: 58) 125 4 Revista Ética e Filosofia Política – Nº 13 – Volume 1 – Janeiro de 2011 On the other end of the spectrum lies an alternative approach towards the Liberal Peace Theory: the ‘monadic peace’ (Danilovic & Clare, 2007). According to this view, liberal states are less likely to go to war than the so-called illiberal states. This is to assert that liberal states hold human life and individual rights in an elevated esteem. Moreover, the belief that reasonable beings are inclined to condemn war is also central in Liberal Peace Theory. The adoption of a monadic perspective facilitates the acknowledgement that liberal states are less prone to go to war than illiberal ones, and are more inclined to adopt negotiation as a means to prevent conflicts (Geis et al, 2007). Nonetheless, according to monadic peace theory, the possibility of military encounters is not discarded, yet significantly reduced. Theories aimed at explaining Democratic Peace can be classified as structural and normative. As for the structural accounts, democratic peace is believed to be the result of institutional constraints within democratic states. Differently, normative theories ‘locate the causes of democratic peace in the ideas or norms held by democracies’ (Owen, 1994). The latter asserts that democracies share a core of values, including harmonic decision making processes, that curbs statesmen willingness to start wars. However, Owen (1994) highlights an often overlooked feature of both structural and normative approaches: states have differing perceptions regarding peer states as being liberals or not. Such perceptions, when acknowledged by statesmen, may lead to relativist accounts on any given state as being liberal or despotic. Finally, the author asserts that the notion of ‘perceptions’ and its potential to examine states’ behavior has been mostly disregarded in International Relations literature. 126 5 Revista Ética e Filosofia Política – Nº 13 – Volume 1 – Janeiro de 2011 SØrensen (2007), referring to the concept of individual liberty, concedes the division of the Liberal Theory in two major branches. At this point, it is important to understand that liberal liberty is often classified as negative liberty (referring to individual autonomy and right to self-determination) and positive liberty (relating to the creation of a specific framework for the development of human potential and individualities). The quest to secure the latter often requires states to adopt a true interventionist stand, thus named Liberalism of Imposition. Some would go as far as to suggest the existence of a duty to intervene whenever liberal values are in peril, as opposed to the Realist claim of unconditional adherence to the principles of state sovereignty and right to self-determination. On the other hand, should states be willing to uphold negative liberties, a completely different approach is desired: for negative liberties call for independence, it is advisable to ‘[…] leave people (and states) alone; let them choose their own path; their liberty should be one of self- determination, and that requires a policy of non-intervention’ (SØrensen, 2007: 367). The latter is called Liberalism of Restraint. As a result, one is inclined to believe that Democratic Peace